This book represents an effort to understand very old questions about biological form, function, and the relationships between them. The essays collected here reflect the diversity of approaches in evolutionary developmental biology, including not only studies by prominent scientists whose research focuses on topics concerned with evolution and development, but also historically and conceptually oriented studies that place the scientific work within a larger framework and ask how it can be pushed further. Topics under discussion range from the use of (...) theoretical and empirical biomechanics to understand the evolution of plant form, to detailed studies of the evolution of development and the role of developmental constraints on phenotypic variation. The result is a rich and interdisciplinary volume that will begin a wider conversation about the shape of Evo Devo as it matures as a field. (shrink)

Whoever wants to understand the successions of the history of philosophy, will not, as Droysen mocked, only follow in «eunuch-like neutrality». He/she will want to enter into a philosophising relationship to these successions. Now, philosophy is essentially arguing. And arguments have a formal and a material aspect. The logical validity in the truth-value preserving transition from premises to conclusions , is different from the reasons for our conviction of this truth itself . For the second validity claim we are differently (...) accountable than we are when proving the formal consistency of our belief connections. We must justify the assumption for which we argue on its own, independently of whether it stands in analytically correct relations to others of its own kind, or whichever conclusions we wish to draw from it. Only the latter, the second, aspect makes philosophy an untargetted endeavour, a dispute between materially competing intuitions. We argue, yes we quarrel with philosophical theses. It would be naive to believe we could ever be so certain of a position as if it were beyond reasonable doubt. «Whether or not it would be nice to knock disagreeing philosophers down by sheer force of argument, it cannot be done. Philosophical theories are never refuted conclusively. […] The theory survives its refutation – at a price» . The question hence is: what price are we prepared to pay for convictions with which we sympathise? In this consideration I am primarily advised by Stephen Toulmin, but also raise critical questions regarding Habermas’s consensualist reception of Toulmin’s indeterminate argumentation theory. (shrink)

Im Rahmen einer Erörterung der Philosophie J.G. Fichtes liegt die wissenschaftliche Bedeutung J.B. Schads nicht darin, daß dieser besonders scharfsinnig interpretierend oder kommentierend an die Wissenschaftslehre herangegangen sei. Das weist er selbst ausdrücklich von sich. Vielmehr kann die philosophische Leistung Schads, die es rechtfertigt, auf einem Fichte-Kongreß auch auf ihn näher einzugehen, darin gesehen werden, daß er als erster den Versuch macht, die Philosophie Fichtes nicht nur allgemeinverständlich darzustellen, sondern sie auch relativ frei aus sich selbst heraus nachzuentwickeln.

Der Beitrag handelt vom Verhältnis der Kantischen Ethik zur empirischen Psychologie seiner Zeit. Einerseits spricht Kant der empirischen Psychologie jede Bedeutung für seine reine praktische Philosophie ab. Andererseits bewegt sich seine Ethik wie selbstverständlich im Bezugsrahmen der Baumgartenschen Dreivermögenslehre. In ersten Teil wird Wolffs und Baumgartens psychologisches Fundament ihrer Moralphilosophie erörtert, im zweiten wird der Einfluß Hutchesons auf Kants praktische Anthropologie beleuchtet, im dritten und vierten Teil werden Kants Lehre von Wille und Willkür in ihrem Verhältnis zu Gefühl und Begehren (...) untersucht und die Gründe für die Irrelanz der Psychologie für die apriorische Bestimmung des Wollens durch das Sittengesetz angegeben.The article deals with the relationship between Kantian ethics and empirical psychology at that time. On the one hand, Kant rejects the relevance of empirical psychology for his pure practical philosophy. On the other, Kant's ethics most obviously fall into place within Baumgarten's theory of three capacities. The first part of the article discusses Wolff's and Baumgarten's psychological foundations for their moral philosophy. The second part explains Hutcheson's influence on Kant's practical anthropology. The third and fourth parts examine Kant's theory of will and choice in their relation to feeling and desire. The reasons why psychology is irrelevant for the a priori determination of the will by the moral law will then be indicated. (shrink)